Turkey threatens repercussions for U.S.

[Sir Evil]

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer 48 minutes ago

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey, which is a key supply route to U.S. troops in Iraq, recalled its ambassador to Washington on Wednesday and warned of serious repercussions if Congress labels the killing of Armenians by Turks a century ago as genocide.
Ordered after a House committee endorsed the genocide measure, the summons of the ambassador for consultations was a further sign of the deteriorating relations between two longtime allies and the potential for new turmoil in an already troubled region.

Egeman Bagis, an aide to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Turkish media that Turkey — a conduit for many of the supplies shipped to American bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan — might have to "cut logistical support to the U.S."

Analysts also have speculated the resolution could make Turkey more inclined to send troops into northern Iraq to hunt Turkish Kurd rebels, a move opposed by the U.S. because it would disrupt one of the few relatively stable and peaceful Iraqi areas.

"There are steps that we will take," Turkey's prime minister told reporters, but without elaboration. It also wasn't clear if he meant his government would act immediately or wait to see what happens to the resolution in Congress.

He declined to answer questions about whether Turkey might shut down Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, a major cargo hub for U.S. and allied military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey's Mediterranean port of Iskenderun is also used to ferry goods to American troops.

"You don't talk about such things, you just do them," Erdogan said.

The measure before Congress is just a nonbinding resolution without the force of law, but the debate has incensed Turkey's government.

The relationship between the two NATO allies, whose troops fought together in the Korean War in 1950-53, have stumbled in the past. They hit a low in 2003, when Turkey's parliament refused to allow U.S. forces use their country as a staging ground for the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

But while the threat of repercussions against the U.S. is appealing for many Turks, the country's leaders know such a move could hurt Turkey's standing as a reliable ally of the West and its ambitions to be a mediator on the international stage.

The Turks did suspend military ties with France last year after parliament's lower house approved a bill that would have made it a crime to deny the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey amounted to genocide. But Turkey has much more to lose from cutting ties to the U.S.

The United States is one of its major business partners, with $11 billion in trade last year, and the U.S. defense industry provides much of the Turkish military's equipment.

Turkey's ambassador in Washington, Nabi Sensoy, was ordered home for discussions with the Turkish leadership about what is happening in Congress, Foreign Minister spokesman Levent Bilman said. He said Sensoy would go back after seven to 10 days.

"We are not withdrawing our ambassador. We have asked him to come to Turkey for some consultations," Bilman said. "The ambassador was given instructions to return and will come at his earliest convenience."

The Bush administration, which is lobbying strongly in hopes of persuading Congress to reject the resolution, stressed the need for good relations with Turkey.

"We look forward to his quick return and will continue to work to maintain strong U.S.-Turkish relations," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. "We remain opposed to House Resolution 106 because of the grave harm it could bring to the national security of the United States."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the measure is damaging relations at a time when U.S. forces in Iraq rely heavily on Turkish permission to use their airspace for cargo flights.

About 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkey as does about one-third of the fuel used by the U.S. military there. U.S. bases also get water and other supplies carried in overland by Turkish truckers who cross into Iraq's northern Kurdish region.

In addition, C-17 cargo planes fly military supplies to U.S. soldiers in remote areas of Iraq from Incirlik, avoiding the use of Iraqi roads vulnerable to bomb attacks. U.S. officials say the arrangement helps reduce American casualties.

U.S.-Turkish ties already had been strained by Turkey's complaint the U.S. hasn't done enough to stop Turkish Kurd rebels from using bases in northern Iraq to stage attacks in southeastern Turkey, a predominantly Kurdish region where tens of thousands have died in fighting since 1984.

Turkish warplanes and helicopter gunships attacked suspected positions of Kurdish rebels on the border this week and Turkey's parliament was expected to vote next week on a proposal to allow the military to pursue a large-scale offensive in northern Iraq.

The U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Ross Wilson, was invited to the Foreign Ministry, where officials conveyed their "unease" over the resolution in Congress and asked the Bush administration do all in its power to stop passage by the full House, a Foreign Ministry official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make press statements.

Historians estimate up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I. Turkey denies the deaths constituted genocide, saying the killings didn't come from a coordinated campaign but rather during unrest accompanying the Ottoman Empire's collapse.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the resolution Wednesday despite intense lobbying by Turkish officials and the opposition from President Bush. The vote was a triumph for well-organized Armenian-American interest groups that have lobbied Congress for decades to pass a resolution.

The administration will now try to pressure Democratic leaders in Congress not to schedule a vote, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated they were committed to going forward.

"Why do it now? Because there's never a good time and all of us in the Democratic leadership have supported" it, she said.

Turkish officials said the House had no business to get involved in writing history.

"It is not possible to accept such an accusation of a crime which was never committed by the Turkish nation," Turkey's government said after the committee adopted the measure.

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_genocide;_ylt=Ai1XOLPK2lMpGhO0WlaERQEUew gF)

[stephanie]

Why didn't they put this forward during the Clinton admin...??

And WHY NOW??

THINK about it....

[Sir Evil]

Why didn't they put this forward during the Clinton admin...??

THINK about it....

Its something of a century old situation but I think the obvious what the objective is here, can anyone else figure that one out?

[LiberalNation]

This is just plain stupid. I'm all for opposing Bush but not at the expense of our country relationship with a key ally in the ME over something that happened so long ago. Declaring it a genocide will not change anything, it will not help whatsoever.

[Trigg]

This is just plain stupid. I'm all for opposing Bush but not at the expense of our country relationship with a key ally in the ME over something that happened so long ago. Declaring it a genocide will not change anything, it will not help whatsoever.

I agree. Why would the congress do this other than to make Bush look bad. It only hurts us in the end and doesn't change what happened.

[Sir Evil]

I agree. Why would the congress do this other than to make Bush look bad. It only hurts us in the end and doesn't change what happened.

To hinder efforts in Iraq is what it's about.

[stephanie]

To hinder efforts in Iraq is what it's about.

That's part of it..

I hope President Bush can smooth this over, and tell them not to listen to the knuckleheads who is pushing this...

[LiberalNation]

Well they already with drew their ambasdor to the US.

[Sir Evil]

Well they already with drew their ambasdor to the US.

And if they decide to send in troops or close the supply routes as well as other options the problem could be huge. A century old case that could of been dealt with at anytime but why not now.

[LiberalNation]

I know, like I said, stupid.

[mrg666]

Not only were the Christians now permitted to bear arms, but the authorities, in the full flush of their enthusiasm for freedom and equality, encouraged them to do so. In the early part of 1915, therefore, every Turkish city contained thousands of Armenians who had been trained as soldiers and who were supplied with rifles, pistols, and other weapons of defense. The operations at Van once more disclosed that these men could use their weapons to good advantage. It was thus apparent that an Armenian massacre this time would generally assume more the character of warfare than those wholesale butcheries of defenseless men and women which the Turks had always found so congenial. If this plan of murdering a race were to succeed, two preliminary steps would therefore have to be taken: it would be necessary to render all Armenian soldiers powerless and to deprive of their arms the Armenians in every city and town. Before Armenia could be slaughtered, Armenia must be made defenseless.
:link:
http://www.homepage-link.to/turkey/morgenthau.html

and guess what it was a christian muslim thing now you all may have known that but i did not its funny how we go round in circles here

[Gaffer]

Once again the libs are trying to undermine our troops by stirring up something they have no business stirring up. The only thing the events of 100 years ago has to do with today is showing the evil of islam that has always existed.

[stephanie]

Once again the libs are trying to undermine our troops by stirring up something they have no business stirring up. The only thing the events of 100 years ago has to do with today is showing the evil of islam that has always existed.

This also showing how evil the Democrats can be...

[retiredman]

I am not entirely sure that the measure is wise, given the timing and the critical importance of Turkey, however, one of the congressmen who voted for the measure mentioned this quote:

"Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter -- with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilisation will say about me. I have issued the command -- and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad -- that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation in readiness -- for the present only in the East -- with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians? " Adolf Hitler 1939

The congressman's point was that genocide denied only sets the stage for more genocide. Like I said, I may not agree with the timing, but the sentiment rings true.

[diuretic]

Who made the decision to invade Iraq?

[red states rule]

Once again the libs are trying to undermine our troops by stirring up something they have no business stirring up. The only thing the events of 100 years ago has to do with today is showing the evil of islam that has always existed.

Situation normal for the left

[manu1959]

Who made the decision to invade Iraq?

the legeslative and executive branches of the us government....and the english parliment and PM....along with about 30 other countries

[retiredman]

the legeslative and executive branches of the us government....and the english parliment and PM....along with about 30 other countries

that is patently false. The legislative branch of the US did not decide to invade Iraq. They merely gave Bush the authority to make such a decision on his own after he had exhausted all other non-agressive measures.

[diuretic]

the legeslative and executive branches of the us government....and the english parliment and PM....along with about 30 other countries

Who brought the proposition to Congress?

[Gaffer]

I am not entirely sure that the measure is wise, given the timing and the critical importance of Turkey, however, one of the congressmen who voted for the measure mentioned this quote:

"Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter -- with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilisation will say about me. I have issued the command -- and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad -- that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation in readiness -- for the present only in the East -- with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians? " Adolf Hitler 1939

The congressman's point was that genocide denied only sets the stage for more genocide. Like I said, I may not agree with the timing, but the sentiment rings true.

What happened a hundred years ago in turkey has nothing to do with congress today. This resolution is purely to create problems for our military by agitating an ally. The turks should tell our congress to shove their resolution and go on with business as usual. As should our state department. The congress can't control the military so they are trying very hard to undermine them.

Our having to find other means of supplying the troops would make it more costly. The dems can then blame Bush for additional costs of the war. Just more playing politics with the military as the pawns. It's the only things the dems want the military for is to be pawns in their game.

[red states rule]

What happened a hundred years ago in turkey has nothing to do with congress today. This resolution is purely to create problems for our military by agitating an ally. The turks should tell our congress to shove their resolution and go on with business as usual. As should our state department. The congress can't control the military so they are trying very hard to undermine them.

Our having to find other means of supplying the troops would make it more costly. The dems can then blame Bush for additional costs of the war. Just more playing politics with the military as the pawns. It's the only things the dems want the military for is to be pawns in their game.

Some people would blame Pres Bush if a dog shits in their yard

[mrg666]

Some people would blame Pres Bush if a dog shits in their yard

good quote :laugh2:

[red states rule]

good quote :laugh2:

It is a sad but true statement

[mrg666]

hey best of it is that dogs great great grandaddy shit in the same backyard and old kenedy never got any blame
its a mystery :laugh2:

[Gaffer]

Some people would blame Pres Bush if a dog shits in their yard

The sad part is they have to go out of their way to do things that will make him look bad. Kinda like doing something evil to show there is evil in the world.

[Trigg]

Who brought the proposition to Congress?

Yes, Bush brought it. You should know though that more than half of the dems in the Senate voted for the war also. It passed 77-23.The House approved it 296-133.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[diuretic]

Yes, Bush brought it. You should know though that more than half of the dems in the Senate voted for the war also. It passed 77-23.The House approved it 296-133.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Yes, the Dems went for it, they were spooked in to it, but that's their problem and they can't, like Clinton, deny it.

[diuretic]

Some people would blame Pres Bush if a dog shits in their yard

If it was Barney then I'd be charging off down Pennsylvania Avenue to complain :laugh2:

[mrg666]

yup but barneys great great grandaddy wouldnt have had a prob
:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Yes, Bush brought it. You should know though that more than half of the dems in the Senate voted for the war also. It passed 77-23.The House approved it 296-133.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

a majority of the democrats in congress did NOT support the measure. an overwhelming majority of republicans did.

[diuretic]

yup but barneys great great grandaddy wouldnt have had a prob
:laugh2:

Now we know why LBJ picked the dog up by the ears.....:coffee:

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But in *The Great CWN's* view.
2. We are rattling Turkeys cage, because the Turks are threatening to invade the Kurdish area of Iraq.
3. The Republicans are saying, "Hey look you typical Arab bastards in Turkey, watch it bastards!, because we got a big stick to whack you over the head with", and "We remember what you did before to the Armenians, and we won't let you do it to the Kurds, you bastards!"
4. Now they have to digest what we told them, and think about if they want to have their butts handed to them.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[diuretic]

Interesting idea except that Bush is now in a flat spin and Turks ain't Arabs, they.....Turks.

[Sir Evil]

:laugh2:

The bigger spin is even bringing the decision of invading Iraq into the equation.
Fact is that we are there, and this decision coming on a century old situation does nothing more than hinder the the current efforts in Iraq should Turkey move on any threats.

[diuretic]

I think if Turkey did go into northern Iraq it would be a diplomatic, policy and military problem for the US. The repercussions would be extremely complex.
But it could happen.

[Sir Evil]

I think if Turkey did go into northern Iraq it would be a diplomatic, policy and military problem for the US. The repercussions would be extremely complex.
But it could happen.

Agreed, and exactly why a century old matter could of been let go at this point until another day. I think the timing of this action was deliberate but that my opinion.

[diuretic]

Agreed, and exactly why a century old matter could of been let go at this point until another day. I think the timing of this action was deliberate but that my opinion.

And that's a fair point. I'm wondering about it myself. Was it domestic politics? I mean, is there a significant Armenian vote in the US?

Leaving that aside for a moment, was it simply an attack on Bush? Was it just dumping a huge problem is his lap? If so, why? I don't know, I'm just asking.

[Sir Evil]

And that's a fair point. I'm wondering about it myself. Was it domestic politics? I mean, is there a significant Armenian vote in the US?

Leaving that aside for a moment, was it simply an attack on Bush? Was it just dumping a huge problem is his lap? If so, why? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Well like anything else political here the true ambitions will be well hidden. Everyone will present a different reason for it but again I think it speaks volumes as far as the timing of it. I don't know so much that it's a huge problem unless it's acted upon by the turks. Supply lines, and bases would be in my opinion the biggest of the issues.

Also in my opinion the reasoning is to simply hinder efforts in Iraq. The democrats promised action to their followers which they have'nt delivered, one way or another I think they are trying.

[diuretic]

Given the Dems probably have the White House in their pocket and, presumably, will keep control of the Congress (sorry I do know the electoral cycles are different but I'm not sure how they play out in the context of the next presidential election) why would they inject this into the process? The vociferous Dems seem to be to be in the minority, like any party they need to appeal to the centre. It's intriguing to say the least.

[Sir Evil]

Given the Dems probably have the White House in their pocket and, presumably, will keep control of the Congress (sorry I do know the electoral cycles are different but I'm not sure how they play out in the context of the next presidential election) why would they inject this into the process? The vociferous Dems seem to be to be in the minority, like any party they need to appeal to the centre. It's intriguing to say the least.

Hmm, again I would only be projecting opinion but if the Turks decide to send in troops, or close supply lines things could very easily go from ugly to outright disastrous in Iraq. So again it leaves one to ponder why now on this as opposed to another time.

I think it has become pretty clear that painting a pretty picture of Iraq will never happen, when is it ever possible to paint a pretty scenario of war? It is also of my opinion that much of the democratic party has projected in many cases impossible scenarios to the public on Iraq for political gains. Yes that is just part of politics but exploiting this on the scale they have shows a great desperation to counter the adminstrations past 8 years at any effort to take office.

I simply suggest this to be of timing, and another tactical move on the democratic behalf.

[diuretic]

Good points and illuminating too, if I may say so.

I would also think that regardless of the domestic pressure in Turkey (and there seems to be plenty) that the government there would do well to pull back from their attempted push into northern Iraq. If the US has some (temporary) disadvantages out of this I'm sure Turkey would have more permanent disadvantages.

[Sir Evil]

Good points and illuminating too, if I may say so.

I would also think that regardless of the domestic pressure in Turkey (and there seems to be plenty) that the government there would do well to pull back from their attempted push into northern Iraq. If the US has some (temporary) disadvantages out of this I'm sure Turkey would have more permanent disadvantages.

Yep I think that makes sense but I think it will unfold soon enough, hopefully in a good ending.

[diuretic]

I suspect there will be a face-saving agreement.

[Sir Evil]

And so it starts:



Some analysts say an operation is more likely after a vote on Wednesday in which a U.S. congressional committee branded killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War One as genocide -- a charge Turkey firmly denies.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Erdogan on Thursday to express her disappointment at the U.S. bill, which the White House has tried to stop.

Over the past few days Washington has sought to calm tensions with Turkey, and urged it not to take unilateral action. The European Union, which Turkey wants to join, have also cautioned against such moves.

Ankara recalled its ambassador from the United States for consultations after the vote, which was strongly condemned in predominantly Muslim but secular Turkey. The vote sparked street protests in Ankara and Istanbul.

The Turkish government cautioned on Thursday that relations with its NATO ally would be harmed by the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee's decision.

"... Some in Congress wanted to play hardball. I can assure you that Turkey knows how to play hardball," Egemen Bagis, ruling AK Party deputy chairman and Erdogan's foreign policy adviser, told reporters in Washington on Thursday.

Potential moves could include blocking U.S. access to the Incirlik air base, cancelling procurement contracts, downscaling bilateral visits, denying airspace to U.S. aircraft, and halting joint military exercises, diplomats say.


LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/ts_nm/turkey_iraq_dc)

[avatar4321]

This is just plain stupid. I'm all for opposing Bush but not at the expense of our country relationship with a key ally in the ME over something that happened so long ago. Declaring it a genocide will not change anything, it will not help whatsoever.

yeah it will. It will help cut our supply lines and get out troops killed so that Democrats can claim we are losing the war.

More than that this could seriously shift the balance of the middle east. If thet Democrats tick Turkey off they might march into kurdish areas of Iraq.

There is nothing good that can come from this and it has the potential to blow up huge for generations to come.

[avatar4321]

I think if Turkey did go into northern Iraq it would be a diplomatic, policy and military problem for the US. The repercussions would be extremely complex.
But it could happen.

which is exactly why this resolution is severely dangerous.

[diuretic]

which is exactly why this resolution is severely dangerous.

I think what's more dangerous is the world's most powerful nation being told what to think by a nation nowhere near as powerful.

[avatar4321]

I think what's more dangerous is the world's most powerful nation being told what to think by a nation nowhere near as powerful.

only pride can make someone think someone who isnt as powerful isnt as dangerous. quite often those who arent as powerful are more dangerous because they have nothing to lose.

[diuretic]

only pride can make someone think soemone who isnt as powerful isnt as dangerous. quite often those who arent as powerful are more dangerous because they have nothing to lose.

I think they have plenty to lose but I take your point.

[actsnoblemartin]

Turkey has no balls. They committed genocide, and turkey. You may help us now, but we could nuke your stupid ass anytime we wanted, so just try us assholes.


By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer 48 minutes ago

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey, which is a key supply route to U.S. troops in Iraq, recalled its ambassador to Washington on Wednesday and warned of serious repercussions if Congress labels the killing of Armenians by Turks a century ago as genocide.
Ordered after a House committee endorsed the genocide measure, the summons of the ambassador for consultations was a further sign of the deteriorating relations between two longtime allies and the potential for new turmoil in an already troubled region.

Egeman Bagis, an aide to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Turkish media that Turkey — a conduit for many of the supplies shipped to American bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan — might have to "cut logistical support to the U.S."

Analysts also have speculated the resolution could make Turkey more inclined to send troops into northern Iraq to hunt Turkish Kurd rebels, a move opposed by the U.S. because it would disrupt one of the few relatively stable and peaceful Iraqi areas.

"There are steps that we will take," Turkey's prime minister told reporters, but without elaboration. It also wasn't clear if he meant his government would act immediately or wait to see what happens to the resolution in Congress.

He declined to answer questions about whether Turkey might shut down Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, a major cargo hub for U.S. and allied military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey's Mediterranean port of Iskenderun is also used to ferry goods to American troops.

"You don't talk about such things, you just do them," Erdogan said.

The measure before Congress is just a nonbinding resolution without the force of law, but the debate has incensed Turkey's government.

The relationship between the two NATO allies, whose troops fought together in the Korean War in 1950-53, have stumbled in the past. They hit a low in 2003, when Turkey's parliament refused to allow U.S. forces use their country as a staging ground for the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

But while the threat of repercussions against the U.S. is appealing for many Turks, the country's leaders know such a move could hurt Turkey's standing as a reliable ally of the West and its ambitions to be a mediator on the international stage.

The Turks did suspend military ties with France last year after parliament's lower house approved a bill that would have made it a crime to deny the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey amounted to genocide. But Turkey has much more to lose from cutting ties to the U.S.

The United States is one of its major business partners, with $11 billion in trade last year, and the U.S. defense industry provides much of the Turkish military's equipment.

Turkey's ambassador in Washington, Nabi Sensoy, was ordered home for discussions with the Turkish leadership about what is happening in Congress, Foreign Minister spokesman Levent Bilman said. He said Sensoy would go back after seven to 10 days.

"We are not withdrawing our ambassador. We have asked him to come to Turkey for some consultations," Bilman said. "The ambassador was given instructions to return and will come at his earliest convenience."

The Bush administration, which is lobbying strongly in hopes of persuading Congress to reject the resolution, stressed the need for good relations with Turkey.

"We look forward to his quick return and will continue to work to maintain strong U.S.-Turkish relations," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. "We remain opposed to House Resolution 106 because of the grave harm it could bring to the national security of the United States."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the measure is damaging relations at a time when U.S. forces in Iraq rely heavily on Turkish permission to use their airspace for cargo flights.

About 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkey as does about one-third of the fuel used by the U.S. military there. U.S. bases also get water and other supplies carried in overland by Turkish truckers who cross into Iraq's northern Kurdish region.

In addition, C-17 cargo planes fly military supplies to U.S. soldiers in remote areas of Iraq from Incirlik, avoiding the use of Iraqi roads vulnerable to bomb attacks. U.S. officials say the arrangement helps reduce American casualties.

U.S.-Turkish ties already had been strained by Turkey's complaint the U.S. hasn't done enough to stop Turkish Kurd rebels from using bases in northern Iraq to stage attacks in southeastern Turkey, a predominantly Kurdish region where tens of thousands have died in fighting since 1984.

Turkish warplanes and helicopter gunships attacked suspected positions of Kurdish rebels on the border this week and Turkey's parliament was expected to vote next week on a proposal to allow the military to pursue a large-scale offensive in northern Iraq.

The U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Ross Wilson, was invited to the Foreign Ministry, where officials conveyed their "unease" over the resolution in Congress and asked the Bush administration do all in its power to stop passage by the full House, a Foreign Ministry official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make press statements.

Historians estimate up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I. Turkey denies the deaths constituted genocide, saying the killings didn't come from a coordinated campaign but rather during unrest accompanying the Ottoman Empire's collapse.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the resolution Wednesday despite intense lobbying by Turkish officials and the opposition from President Bush. The vote was a triumph for well-organized Armenian-American interest groups that have lobbied Congress for decades to pass a resolution.

The administration will now try to pressure Democratic leaders in Congress not to schedule a vote, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated they were committed to going forward.

"Why do it now? Because there's never a good time and all of us in the Democratic leadership have supported" it, she said.

Turkish officials said the House had no business to get involved in writing history.

"It is not possible to accept such an accusation of a crime which was never committed by the Turkish nation," Turkey's government said after the committee adopted the measure.

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_us_genocide;_ylt=Ai1XOLPK2lMpGhO0WlaERQEUew gF)

[Yurt]

It was genocide by faithful muslims:

Young Islamic extremists, sometimes leading to violence, staged anti-Armenian demonstrations. During one such outbreak in 1909, two hundred villages were plundered and over 30,000 persons massacred in the Cilicia district on the Mediterranean coast.

Between 1894 and 1896 over 100,000 inhabitants of Armenian villages were massacred during widespread pogroms conducted by the Sultan's special regiments.

Genocide (http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/armenian_genocide.htm)

[Nukeman]

It was genocide by faithful muslims:

Young Islamic extremists, sometimes leading to violence, staged anti-Armenian demonstrations. During one such outbreak in 1909, two hundred villages were plundered and over 30,000 persons massacred in the Cilicia district on the Mediterranean coast.

Between 1894 and 1896 over 100,000 inhabitants of Armenian villages were massacred during widespread pogroms conducted by the Sultan's special regiments.

Genocide (http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/armenian_genocide.htm)The ultimate question still remains, WHY BRING THIS UP NOW???? What is the Dem held congress thinking, yes this may make Bush look like even more of an idiot but they will just be leaving a big mess for the next President who may be a Democrat!!!

[Dilloduck]

The ultimate question still remains, WHY BRING THIS UP NOW???? What is the Dem held congress thinking, yes this may make Bush look like even more of an idiot but they will just be leaving a big mess for the next President who may be a Democrat!!!

Bigger question-----Why has this story disappeared from the news cycle?

[avatar4321]

Bigger question-----Why has this story disappeared from the news cycle?

because they are trying to bury it until they can point out that its Bush's fault that Turkey has invaded Iraq

[Sir Evil]

because they are trying to bury it until they can point out that its Bush's fault that Turkey has invaded Iraq

Meanwhile: Turkey takes step toward Iraq operation



Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said President Bush had no plans to intervene in the vote, although the administration has been lobbying intensely to persuade lawmakers to reject the resolution.

"There should be no question of the president's views on this issue and the damage that this resolution could do to U.S. foreign policy interests," Fratto told reporters Monday aboard Air Force One.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will schedule a vote soon on the resolution.

Fratto said the White House does not want Pelosi to bring it to the floor; should it come to a vote, he said, "We will strongly encourage members not to support it."


LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_4;_ylt=Am7tHSLWIbPprfFvNFnfKR8UewgF)

[avatar4321]

Something like this can trigger a regional if not a world war. and no one seems to care.

[Sir Evil]

Armenia genocide measure to advance

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives said on Sunday she intends to press ahead on a resolution calling the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman Turks genocide, despite White House concerns it will damage relations with Turkey, a supporter of the Iraq war.
"I said if it passed the committee that we would bring it to the floor," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC television's "This Week."

A congressional committee on Wednesday approved the Armenian resolution, sponsored by a California lawmaker whose district has a large Armenian-American constituency.

The full House is due to vote on the strictly symbolic measure by mid-November.

President George W. Bush has adamantly opposed the resolution, warning that it would interfere with Turkey's support for U.S. troops in Iraq and harm relations with an important ally.

"We regret that Speaker Pelosi is intent on bringing this resolution for a vote despite the strong concerns expressed by foreign policy and defense experts," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in Crawford, Texas where Bush is spending the weekend at his ranch.

"We continue to strongly to oppose this resolution which may do grave harm to U.S.-Turkish relations and to U.S. interests in Europe and the Middle East," he said.

Pelosi, of California, said her determination to bring the measure to a vote has not wavered despite Bush's warnings that it would pose problems for the U.S. effort in Iraq.
"Some of the things that are harmful to our troops relate to values," Pelosi said. "I think that our troops are well-served when we declare who we are as a country and increase the respect that people have for us as a nation."

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071014/pl_nm/turkey_usa_congress_dc;_ylt=As_66eap0WkgPAQ1C2O.Je yyFz4D)

[Dilloduck]

Something like this can trigger a regional if not a world war. and no one seems to care.

Turkey has a problem and it's Kurds. I can't say as I blame them for having to put up with attacks coming from northern Iraq. Another case of old hatreds.

[avatar4321]

Turkey has a problem and it's Kurds. I can't say as I blame them for having to put up with attacks coming from northern Iraq. Another case of old hatreds.

I know. we are about to see an explosion of war. Things are going to spin out of control if we cant stop it now.

[Dilloduck]

I know. we are about to see an explosion of war. Things are going to spin out of control if we cant stop it now.

Americans cant agree on shit.

[avatar4321]

Americans cant agree on shit.

Tell me about it.

[Dilloduck]

Tell me about it.

I think this is a great example again of how party politics is taking precedent over America functioning as it needs to. I've been noticing the incredible lack of in depth reporting on this issue so far yet it has been building for years. You think that might pretend to like each other behind the scenes enough to address this ?